South Dakota Politics

Daschle has it both ways on WMD

Rapid City Journal political reporter Denise Ross has an excellent piece of hard-nosed journalism today under the headline "Daschle satisfied with war progress." Excerpt:

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction....

Daschle took a different tone when he and other congressional leaders met with Bush in late January to discuss the intelligence snafu.

"I think it is critical that we follow up and find out what went wrong," the New York Times quoted him as saying just before the meeting.

"Daschle noted that congressional leaders had depended on sound intelligence in voting on the war," reads the New York Times story from Jan. 27.

Only ten days ago, Tom Daschle was quoted in Time magazine as saying the following about the Bush administration and weapons of mass destruction:

"There is a credibility chasm," declared Senate minority leader Tom Daschle on Friday, "whether it is weapons of mass destruction, whether it is the budget, whether it is so many things that emanate these days from this Administration, its credibility has eroded dramatically."

(Emphasis added). Clearly, Tom Daschle is trying to be a liberal in Washington and a conservative at home. He's trying to have it both ways, and as long as reporters like Denise Ross continue to produce quality pieces like the one today, Daschle will not get away with it. Kudos to Denise Ross.

For more analysis on Tom Daschle having it both ways, see the Daschle v. Thune blog's latest post.

Daschle has it both ways on campaign finance "reform"

Today's edition of the Washington Post has a story headlined "FEC Chairman Backs Organizations' Use of 'Soft Money'." Excerpt:

Defying Republican Party demands to rule illegal the plans of a network of pro-Democratic political committees, Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith now argues that these committees should remain free to raise and spend large contributions known as "soft money."

Smith's argument, spelled out in a 37-page proposal to his five FEC colleagues, sharply increases, but does not guarantee, the likelihood that new pro-Democratic groups with multimillion-dollar budgets will become significant forces in the 2004 election and become what amounts to a "shadow" Democratic Party.

...

Smith's position was supported in a letter to the FEC from eight Democratic senators, including Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

...

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) have taken the opposite view. In Senate floor statements, the two called for tough regulation of the 527 organizations. McCain declared: "It is time for the FEC, rather than being an enabler to those who want to subvert the laws, to be a true enforcer of the law."

So now Tom Daschle thinks Bradley Smith's positions are just peachy. Back when campaign finance reform was a great rhetorical bludgeon to pound Republicans with, Tom Daschle was not nearly so keen on Bradley Smith, as the Wall Street Journal opinion page points out today in a piece headlined "Campaign Finance Follies; Democrats owe Bradley Smith an apology." Excerpt:

The supreme irony in all this is that Mr. Smith's consistency has suddenly made him the darling of every pro-Democrat organization in Washington. No fewer than 324 liberal groups have warned the FEC not to restrict 527s, including Ralph Neas's People for the American Way, the abortion rights lobby and the Sierra Club. Many of these groups not only supported campaign finance reform but also tried to block Mr. Smith's nomination to the FEC in 2000.

At the time Mr. Smith was variously denounced as a "nihilist" (Illinois Senator Dick Durbin), a throwback to "the dark days of Watergate" (Common Cause), and a "flat-earth society poobah" (Atlanta Constitution, where they need fresher metaphors). Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was quoted at the time saying that giving Mr. Smith the job was "not just asking the fox to guard the chicken coop," but "inviting the fox inside and locking the door behind him." Apparently these worthies are only in favor of regulating free speech when the speakers at issue are their political opponents.

As the piece points out, Tom Daschle's reversal of principle on the issue of campaign finance reform is amusing and embarrassing. It is just one more indication of Tom Daschle having it both ways on controversial issues.

Daschle has it both ways on disclosure

Watch the Argus Leader turn on a dime in following up a report in Roll Call today headlined "State Account Helped Thune." Excerpt:

Former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) spent roughly $50,000 from a long-dormant state campaign account to fund travel, staff salaries and consulting fees in 2003, leading Democrats to call on him to fully disclose the nature of those expenditures....

"JohnThune should provide full disclosure of what he spent this soft money on," said [Daschle campaign manager Steve] Hildebrand. "He should say what consultants got paid, what travel was used for what and come clean in a very specific way as to how this money got spent."

[Thune campaign manager Dick] Wadhams shot back: "If the Daschle campaign wants to wrap their arms around full disclosure we are going to give them ample opportunity to disclose a lot in the coming months."

...

At issue is whether Thune's activities in 2003 qualify as "testing the waters" for a political race.

Under a guide written by the Federal Election Commission for potential federal candidates, an individual in this stage "does not have to register or report as a candidate even if the individual raises or spends more than $5,000 - the dollar threshold that would normally trigger candidate registration."

"Nevertheless the individual must comply with the contribution limits and prohibitions," according to the guide.

A reader shares the following insight:

There's a familiar technique afoot.

1. Start campaign by warning opponent will go negative.

2. Find some technical matter of the campaign finance law that is too abstruse for the public to understand or reporters to get accurately.

3. Charge your opponent with illegality or ethical missteps.

4. If criticized in return, claim the campaign is going negative.

Of course, if Tom Daschle were really interested in full disclosure, he would release his tax returns, which for some strange reason he doesn't do anymore, although he did release his tax returns back in 1982. Last year, Power Line chimed in about Daschle's refusal to release his tax returns. Even Senator Schumer discloses his tax returns. Why won't Senator Daschle? The issue of tax returns has an impressive topicality, as April is approaching. Watch for Daschle's acrobatics as he tries to weasel out of disclosing his tax returns again this year.

Daschle has a "liberal quotient" of 83%

Do you recall Steve Hildebrand, Tom Daschle's campaign manager, bragging in a letter to the Rapid City Journal about a study that has Daschle voting with President Bush 75 percent of the time? That letter got Tom Daschle in trouble with liberals like those at the Buzzflash website, who called for Daschle to step down as minority leader.

What's interesting is that Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gives Tom Daschle an 83 percent lifetime "liberal quotient." According to ADA, Tom Daschle is even more liberal than George McGovern, who only has a 75 percent lifetime liberal quotient.

Daschle having it both ways on spending bill

Tom Daschle is trying to take credit for passage of a bill he voted against and even tried to filibuster, as seen by his press release published verbatim in the Native American Times headlined "Senate Approves Nearly $11.5 Million for Tribal Projects Senators announce." Gee, doesn't that list of projects contained in the press release look familiar? But the bottom line is that Tom Daschle has managed to get himself a Native American primary opponent named Tim Giago, perhaps due in small part to Daschle trying to get cute with this omnibus spending bill. I don't think Tim Giago is buying what Tom Daschle is trying to sell.

I especially like the way Senator Johnson accuses Republicans of "bogging down" the spending bill, particularly in light of a story in the New York Times yesterday headlined "Senate Approves Huge Spending Bill After Democrats' Delay." Yes, even the NYT says the Democrats delayed the bill.

Comparing Daschle to LBJ

Roll Call has published a piece by Jon Lauck, a history professor at South Dakota State University, headlined "Like Lyndon Johnson, Daschle Has Trouble Balancing Two Jobs." In the piece, Lauck discusses Daschle's campaign strategy to portray himself as the chief opponent of the president in Washington, while simultaneously portraying himself as a supporter of the president back home. Excerpt:

[D]aschle has made plans to repulse the inevitable criticism from his new opponent, 43-year-old ex-Rep.
John Thune (R). In one of the more bizarre rituals of last year, Daschle’s campaign operatives in South Dakota constantly bragged about how often Daschle supports President Bush. Their strategy, carried off with a straight face, has been to tout how much the titular head of the Democratic Party supports a Republican president in an “us versus them” age, when swing voters are disappearing, and when the parties are implementing “get out the base vote” plans.

One can understand the strategy. Bush won South Dakota by 22 points in 2000 and a Democrat has not won the presidential vote in the state for 40 years.

The liberal alternative to the Drudge Report, Buzzflash.com, recently picked up on Daschle’s strategy and, unsurprisingly, called for his resignation as Minority Leader. Stories in National Journal, The New Republic, The Nation and The American Prospect have echoed liberals’ growing exasperation with Daschle. Such attacks on Daschle are a portent of things to come.

Daschle, as the leader of the party, will be expected to keep constant pressure on President Bush. Being the full-time obstructionist, however, will be disastrous back in Bush country in South Dakota. If he doesn’t do
his duty, on the other hand, he virtually guarantees he won’t be re-elected as Democratic leader....

Instead of a classic campaign of clashing issues, Daschle wants the campaign in South Dakota to be about personality, image and “clout.” Daschle hopes the accumulation of personal contact over the years and his “ability to deliver” will carry him through....

The “clout” argument is also rapidly evaporating. Experts agree that with Senate retirements in the South the chances of Daschle becoming Majority Leader again are negligible. And his ability to “deliver” was seriously questioned after he failed to pass the energy bill, perhaps the single most important piece of legislation to South Dakota in 20 years because of the ethanol provisions.

Some speculate that as a constant enemy of the president, Daschle actually makes it more difficult to get things done for South Dakota. The ethanol bill is a perfect distillation of Daschle’s dilemma.

His Caucus and his liberal interest-group supporters hated the overall bill, so he could not actively work for passage. Daschle therefore sat on the sidelines while the ethanol supporters in South Dakota watched in stunned horror.

Daschle had to vote for the bill, however, since he had been running ads all summer about how he could “deliver” on ethanol. In one clumsy transaction, Daschle alienated his liberal supporters by voting for the bill and betrayed the ethanol supporters in his state by failing to even try to use his “clout” to pass the bill.